We really lack of homogeneity ;-) I've listed current use of those different options. sletuffe (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

wording

Looks much better now. Regarding Prefix:removed :

the sentence fragment "or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources" could still be interpreted wrongly, would suggest eg "but are commonly seen on other sources such as satellite imagery" to make it clearer. RicoZ (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No problems with that change. sletuffe (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Or what kind of features is there which never existed but are in other sources? RicoZ (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A bit of history, in France we are tracing most buildings from a governement source (cadastre). In some rare occasions, say 1 building out of 300, this source shows building that don't exist on the ground. Someone came on the mailing list to complain that some armchair mapper re-added a building he removed in the past but that user don't know if it once existed or is just an error from the source. sletuffe (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This should be ok, wondering if it would be worth to introduce a special prefix such as "nonexistent:" or "cadastre_error:"? RicoZ (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that is a possibility, but really wondering if we aren't overdoing it. There allready are several tags for quite the same thing. Trying to distinguish why something isn't there is imho overkill. My guess is that most people just want to express the fact something in osm is not here on the ground and they know that someone else is likely to re-add it. If that is better for sake of clarity, we could change the wording to Namespace for features that don't exist but have an high probability to be re-added by a non surveyed edit because they can be seen on commonly used imagery or import sources. (And if some people really want to express that a statue isn't here because it was moved elsewhere, let them just add some removed:reason=moved sletuffe (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

usage of (maybe) similar concepts - I think this section could be cleaned up and parts of it moved to lifecycle prefix and/or comparison of life cycle concepts. Only the features most directly related to "removed" should be in the prefix:removed page.RicoZ (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The thing is I collected that list from taginfo, I don't know if it really is similar because isn't described on the wiki, that is only a guess. Should lifecycle prefix contain any thing that looks like a life cycle prefix ? Shouldn't we only collect what is at least defined on the wiki (unless somone who use it describe his own usage) ?

If it is unclear how it is related than I would rather list it in one of the more generic pages and keep this one specific to "removed:" RicoZ (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm okay to copy that/or part of that content to lifecycle prefix, but find it still usefull to have related keys and tags on this page. (maybe merged with the last section Related keys and tags) sletuffe (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am mostly worried to avoid having similar lists spread over too many pages, also linking to "abandoned=" is not so good if the prefix version of "abandoned:" was meant. So I would prefer to keep a very short overview of other prefixes that belong to lifecycle prefix with a prominent link as well as anything that is more specifically related to "removed:" rather than more generic pages. RicoZ (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

ok for related prefixes (beside those who most likely mean the same thing : no/was/removed_/... ) to move them elsewhere. sletuffe (talk)